The report of the Strategic Director - Growth & Development is enclosed.

In December 2019 the Executive had considered a report on the concept of co-living and its place in the city. At that time the Executive had noted the concept and the issues around its development, the nature of the product, and the limited contribution that it could make to the city’s housing offer, and had requested that the Strategic Director, Growth and Development undertake a consultation process with key stakeholders and reports on the outcomes of that (Minute Exe/19/102).

The Strategic Director reported that the initial consultation on co-living had been carried out in two phases. A consultation process had taken place with developers and key organisations. (Phase 1). Consultation with wider stakeholders, including residents (Phase 2), had then taken place as part of the Local Plan review. The report explained that the Phase 1 stakeholder consultation had closed on 9 March 2020 and five developers had responded. They all expressed an interest in developing co-living schemes in Manchester, adding that:

·         the approach should be less cautious in the city centre and the amount of accommodation should not be limited;

·         there should be more flexibility about where it would be supported in the city centre;

·         the scope should be broadened to include existing successful business and not just new or recently arrived employers;

·         the size of units in co-living schemes should not necessarily have to comply with approved space standards;

·         restricting the length of tenancies could disrupt tenants;

·         some considered co-Living to be affordable housing;

·         zero carbon policy requirements could undermine viability; and.

·         co-Living schemes should not automatically exclude students.

The Phase 2 consultation had closed on 3 May. In that respondents had been asked to comment on this statement:

            “The emerging issue of co-living accommodation is a matter the plan will also need to address. The Council has recently set out an initial position on the matter, noting the issues around its development, the nature of the product, and the limited contribution it could make to the city’s housing offer. Further work will be required to help inform any policy approach that will feature in the Local Plan in due course. Other forms of short-term renting, including AirBnB, will also need to be addressed in the Local Plan.”

There had been 561 responses to that from residents, businesses, statutory consultees and partner agencies (although not all commented on the co-living statement). Most of the responses were from residents. Whilst most acknowledged the need for a range of good quality, affordable accommodation there was a general consensus that this should not include multi-occupation developments or subdivision of buildings into multiple units. There was also concern that car parking can be prioritised over green spaces when planning for multi-occupational developments, and there was often increased instances of littering and build-up of refuse in the surrounding areas of multi occupational buildings.

In responding to the issues that had been raised in both phases of the consultation, the report set out a proposed policy position on co-living for the Council to adopt pending the conclusion of the review of the Local Plan. Those were:

·         Co-living should be restricted to a limited number of key areas of high employment growth within the city centre, where it can be demonstrated that a co-living development could provide added value to the wider commercial offer in the area.

·         The size and scale of the developments need to be underpinned by the generation of employment opportunities from growth in key sectors in the city.

·         Safe and secure, zero carbon developments will only be considered. Schemes should be in city centre locations that are well connected, to ensure residents can access jobs, public transport, walking and cycling routes in the city.

With these conditions being considered for co-living schemes, possibly through Section 106 agreements:

·         Development should provide an appropriate mix of cluster flats and private studios, complying with MCC’s adopted space standards, as part of the Manchester Residential Quality Guidance.

·         A long-term operational management platform will need to be provided for across each scheme in its entirety. This should include a single management and lettings entity, with a long-term commitment.

·         Developers should be required to legally commit to renting only to working households, or households actively seeking work, and precluding letting to students.

·         A maximum stay should be defined for short-term studio lets, for example, six months.

·         Developments must contribute to Council Tax revenue, with Council Tax paid by the operator, in order to strengthen the tax base.

·         A contribution should be made in accordance with the city’s affordable housing policy.

·         Developments must have a clear place-making delivery strategy, including open spaces and public realm.

·         Planning applications should include a conversion plan to demonstrate how the building could be repurposed if required.

·         Co-living is not an affordable housing product on a price per sq. metre basis and cannot be seen as a mechanism for developers to meet affordable housing targets in Manchester.

·         That parking should not be a component of any co-living scheme.

Other principles were

·         Developers will need to demonstrate a clear rationale and need, based around their contribution to the local economy, responding to the specific needs of employers and supporting jobs; it would be essential to demonstrate that there was a clear link between the need to recruit and retain staff and the adjacency of the co-living product.

·         As a general principle co-living schemes should conform to Manchester policies and specific standards. If a co-living proposals does not accord with current policy (for example, departing from space standards), it will need to show that there is a compelling and over-riding rationale for so doing, and that the benefits outweigh the areas of non-compliance.

Having considered the views expressed by the consultees, and the responses to those that the report proposed, it was agreed that the proposed approach be approved and commended to the Planning and Highways Committee.

Decisions

1.         To note the outcome of the consultation exercise with key stakeholders on co-living.

2.         To endorse the approach set out in the report, as described above, to help guide the decision making process in advance of the review of the Local Plan and request the Planning and Highways Committee take this approach into material consideration until the Local Plan has been reviewed.